Interview

From Stewards to Shareholders

Eyaks Face Extinction

An interview with Dune Lankard and Marie Smith Jones

In September 1992, Dune Lankard and Marie Smith Jones, along with the
environmental law firm Trustees for Alaska, brought an unsuccessful lawsuit
against the Eyak Corporation to stop the corporation from clearcutting
on lands sacred to the Eyak people. Both Lankard and Jones are shareholders
in the corporation. Dune Lankard is part-Eyak and has served on the board
of the Eyak Corporation. Marie Smith Jones is the chief of the traditional
elders council established to protect the remaining heritage of the Eyaks.
She is 74 years old and the last full-blooded Eyak Indian alive.

MM: What factors have led to the extinction of the Eyak people?

Dune Lankard: From 1889 to about 1915, a couple of events
took place that were very destructive to our way of life and our people.
In the late 1890s, five canneries were built in the Copper River Delta
area. The Eyaks' livelihood and subsistence lifestyle was drastically changed
because the cannery workers placed nets five miles off-shore, funneled
the fish into the canneries and blocked off the traditional salmon runs.
So the Eyaks became dependent on the canneries for survival. And at the
same time that they were taking the entire run, they were dynamiting streams.
They basically wiped out our way of life.

When whites moved into the area and built the canneries, they brought
alcohol. The canneries brought in a cheap Chinese labor force and the Chinese
brought in opium. Just think about the destruction, about what can happen
when the alcohol is mixed with the drugs: there is rape, there is violence,
there is the abuse of Indian women.

Shortly after that, the railroad was built, right over the top of the
last Eyak village site in Cordova. Then the government schools came in,
the public schools that allowed only white children. Some of the Eyak children
were shipped away to boarding schools in Oregon, some never to return.

The population of our people prior to the canneries being built was
over 300; we were diminished to 50 by about 1920. The final event that
wiped out many of our people was the 1918 flu.

Now, Marie is the last full-blooded Eyak Indian on the face of the earth.
If Marie were white, this would not be happening. It would be a whole different
ballgame then. People would be really concerned that a race of people is
being destroyed. But we are just another Indian clan to a lot of people,
so they are not taking this seriously. I believe that when Marie does pass
on, there will probably be books written about her, maybe even a movie,
like "The Last of the Mohicans" - "The Last of the Eyaks." By then it will
already be a done deal. And it is so sad.

We were the last "founded," or rediscovered, tribe in North America
and we are the first language and race of Alaskan Indians that will be
wiped off the face of the earth when Marie dies. We were recognized as
a tribe by anthropologists in 1933 and now, 60 years later, we are facing
extinction. So more than anything, we want people to learn from this sad
story and grasp its meaning so it never happens again.

MM: What were the impacts of statehood on Alaskan Natives?

Lankard: When Alaska became the 49th state in 1959, it
took away the rights of the people. The land was incorporated into the
U.S. system; the way governments have successfully taken the land away
from the Alaska Natives or indigenous people all over the world is by incorporating
the land. A nation is allowed to bring in its own military, supposedly
to protect us, but actually to govern us. For example, when they built
the railroad in the 1900s, they said it would help our people because it
would provide greater access to the area. What it really allowed was our
resources to be extracted much faster.

Marie Smith Jones: Even in the 1940s, during the war, the
area was recognized as Native land. The railroad gave my father the right
to live on any spot along that railroad. The tracks were just 50 yards
or so from my father's house. At that time, the railroad company recognized
that it was Indian land and they honored that. I think after Alaska became
a state, it started going downhill.

MM: In 1971, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)
extinguished all tribal claims of aboriginal title and placed 44 million
acres of land in the hands of Native corporations, rather than in tribal
ownership. What is your assessment of ANCSA?

Lankard: ANCSA took away the land rights of the people and gave
them rights as shareholders. They are basically incorporated out of control
of their own lives. They are not able to defend their ancestral lands,
because they cannot go beyond the framework of the U.S. legal system. If
we had retained our tribal government laws in 1971, we would now have 220
village tribal governments making laws that would not pertain to U.S. laws.
When a number of Native leaders got together and incorporated the Alaska
Federation of Natives in 1971, they had a choice right then to either retain
tribal government status or to incorporate into the U.S. law system. When
they chose the incorporation, the people lost their land claims. The claims
went instead to these new Native corporations, which are multinational
corporations wearing Native masks, in the sense that multinational corporations
are interested in "development" and "progress."

Incorporating the land and its people made us all shareholders of the
land. You look out over the horizon and you see all this wonderful land
that we have lived on and made our living on for thousands of generations.
But when you become a shareholder, which means that you have ownership
in the land, it changes your perspective on how you look at that land.
Instead of seeing beautiful forests, you see acres and acres of timber.
Instead of seeing beautiful mountains, you see mines. You look at everything
as a valuable resource rather than as a valuable way of life.

MM: How have the Eyaks come to be a minority on the board
of their own corporation?

Lankard: The Eyak Corporation was fighting for its land
claims along with the other Indian tribes in the region. It had come into
view that the Eyaks were an extinct people - that we were pretty much assimilated
into other tribes - so the federal and state governments considered the
Cordova area or the Copper River Delta area a melting pot for a bunch of
different Native groups. There were Aleuts there, as well as Klinkits,
Chugach Eskimos (who are pretty much Aleuts), the Eyaks and a few Upiks
and some Athabascans. You'll find that type of mix anywhere in Alaska unless
you're in really remote villages.

The Eyaks' ancestral claim to the land was proven. But some important
terminology was instituted in the Land Claims Act itself that said membership
in a village roll was to be determined by residency in a village: if you
were considered a resident of the Eyak village area, and if you had a quarter
Indian blood or more, then you were able to enroll as a member of the Eyak
village. Three hundred Aleuts, Klinkits, Upiks and Athabascans then became
a part of our village council - so right off the bat we became a minority
in our own village council. They took over our council and passed laws
that were not traditional to us. As soon as the Eyaks' land claim was accepted,
the board incorporated 148,000 acres of land. The Aleuts then took all
the positions on the board of directors of the Eyak Corporation. So we
have been a minority at the corporation since day one.

MM: What is your current dispute with the board?

Lankard: The board is making a move on our ancestral
lands on the Eyak River. For the last three years, prior to June 1992,
I sat on the board of directors of the Eyak Corporation. I tried to institute
policies that protected our ancestral lands from being destroyed. I met
with the board on many occasions to try to prevent clearcutting. We had
a verbal agreement with the loggers and with the Eyak Corporation that
the area right along the Eyak River would not be cut.

When I was out commercial fishing this summer, I heard on the radio
that the loggers had made a move on the River. The area right along the
River was cut. This section was called Eyak River East, but the corporate
management and the board of directors called it the Curren Slough clearcut.
They said there was a technicality in our verbal agreement stipulating
that Eyak River East was not part of Eyak River. But the clearcut is adjacent
to the Eyak River - it is the Eyak River. So I went to the board
of directors and I pleaded with them not to cut the area until a cultural
survey had been done to remove or excavate artifacts or burial sites or
anything that was of significance to us before it was totally destroyed.
They chose not to.

Jones: In the 1960s, I got a letter asking if I would sell the
last Eyak village. I fought for the land for seven years. But just a few
months ago, I was told that I sold that place. If there are any papers
saying that I sold it, they have to be forgeries. Because I did not sell
anything. I will not sell any of our people's land. It is sacred to me.
I would never be able to face myself, my family, my people or God if I
had ever done such a thing. There isn't enough money in this world. My
land means more to me than all the money in this world.

Lankard: In response to the lawsuit, the corporate management
alleged that Marie sold the village. In fact, that was not true, but they
used it to discredit us and our claim to the land.

MM: Can't you use your power as an Eyak Corporation shareholder
to influence corporate decisions?

Lankard: As shareholders we have zero rights. All of the traditionalists
are called "dissidents." The dissidents do not have the education, they
do not have the money, they do not have the power to go against these corporate
Indians. Twenty years after the passage of ANCSA, on December 18, 1992,
the moratorium on the sale of our stock was supposed to be lifted. All
of the Native corporations got together and changed the law a couple days
before the moratorium was lifted, and added another year-and-a-half moratorium
on the sale of our stock. The moratorium was instituted to protect Native
corporations from hostile takeovers by outside interests, but one of its
negative effects is that it shields Native board members from accountability.
By taking away the right to sell our stock, they left us with no leverage
to influence corporate decisions. Board members do not have to fear outside
corporations coming in and taking over the board so they are free to act
as they wish.

The corporate Indian position is that they feel that they have to give
the Natives dividends because the Natives' skin is brown - their attitude
is basically, "We are Natives so we have to give our people dividends."
They are buying into the welfare system that says they have to give us
money.

Well, we don't want the money. We want our land. With the land comes
the resources and then in turn comes the money. We feel that there is more
money in governing and managing our land than in developing its resources,
because once the resources are gone the money is gone.

MM: How should the Native Corporation system be reformed?
How should Native lands be managed?

Lankard: There needs to be a new vision and spirit put
back into the hearts of the people who are silent right now. The change
that needs to take place is to prove to the Natives that they do have power
and that their voices do count. Because right now you have intimidated
people who are afraid to talk and afraid to come forward. So their voice
is deadened. I would say that our spirit has been broken in the last hundred
years. What we are trying to do right now is revive the spirit of the people
and put pride back in their hearts.

Then we need to begin to work in a new direction to preserve the lands
the same way we have for thousands of generations. If one of the main concerns
is to create dividends for Native people, we need to develop resources
in an unobtrusive way.

By developing non-obtrusive tourism in Alaska, for example, you can
create a number of jobs. We are running out of places like this in the
world. [Responsible tourism] will also teach people to respect the land
again. If you pack it in, you pack it out. No one is going to want to come
visit Alaska after our lands have been clearcut and strip mined - they
can see that in the Lower 48, they can see that from their own homes.

The important thing is to get people back on the land. When you live
in the United States, your feet never touch the ground - you're on pavement
constantly, you're in cars, you're in homes. When you go out into a wilderness
area and you are out in the woods and near a stream and your feet are solidly
on the ground - you feel a sense of balance, you feel like you have come
in touch with the earth. That is what the Native people have always had,
that is why they have always been relaxed and wise. We have a saying now
that with the corporate Indians, the wisdom has left their chiefs. In other
words, they've lost touch with reality, they've lost their balance. They
are caught up in a world that they are not familiar with.

We need to be able to go out to those woods, near those streams, out
to those areas that are sacred to us. The last thing that we want is to
walk into a clearcut, because there your heart is filled with pain. Or
if you go to a favorite mountaintop and it is strip- mined, how are you
going to feel about that mountain? It takes away the sacredness of the
area.

This is what we are trying to protect. So people can enjoy what we have
enjoyed for thousands of generations. The only way that anything is going
to be left in this world is to make people hear what we are saying and
understand the importance of why the land has to be left alone.